BobbyTomek,
Sure, Ringman. But your testing methodology also convinced you to claim -- in a classified ad, no less -- that your Z5 had "WAY better" glass than the Z3.
And we all know -- and Swarovski techs will confirm -- that both use the same glass and same coatings and that only the internals differ.
What separates the wheat from the chafe in low-light hunting scopes is the ability to resolve fine detail under poor lighting conditions. And just because a $50 scope can hang with a $500 scope at high noon doesn't mean it will hold true once the sun dips below the horizon.
What is your motive to confuse the issue here? I was responding to a question in the ad. It was not part of the original text.
I think you lack experience with Swarovski. To keep the z5 scope I have, I bought
FOUR! z5 5-25X52. Numbers three and four were like a different cheaper brand compared to number one and four. Their low light performance was about like my Bushnell 6500, which is not as good as my Bushnell 4200. Number four was barely better than number one. I kept it.
The
one I have is "WAY better" than the z3 I compared it to at the range. It was more like #3 & 4 above. It makes no difference how many times someone tells me they are not different, I know empirically they're not the same one scope to the next. My gunsmith was discussted with the quality control of Swarovski z5's. Apparently z3's vary also or my z5 would not have been better.
